Breaking News - Gay Marriage Ruling

[california boy]

In other words, it is a stretch beyond any reasonable interpretation of the case.

You do know that many judges and lawyers would disagree with your statement. If it was a stretch then the case would have no merit. Most reasonable people think indeed, it does have merit. In fact most reasonable people think that both sides have merit. I doubt that any decision on gay marriage will be unanimous. There will be judges on both sides that think the case has merit. Whether the supreme court thinks it has enough merit is yet to be determined.

[Stargazer]

You do know that many judges and lawyers would disagree with your statement. If it was a stretch then the case would have no merit. Most reasonable people think indeed, it does have merit. In fact most reasonable people think that both sides have merit. I doubt that any decision on gay marriage will be unanimous. There will be judges on both sides that think the case has merit. Whether the supreme court thinks it has enough merit is yet to be determined.

CB, I wasn't talking about that. Frankenstein cited a case in support of gay marriage, and since it had nothing to do with gay marriage, only heterosexual marriage, I was telling him that his interpretation was too big a stretch.

[frankenstein]

CB, I wasn't talking about that. Frankenstein cited a case in support of gay marriage, and since it had nothing to do with gay marriage, only heterosexual marriage, I was telling him that his interpretation was too big a stretch.

This is not a correct statement.

I only cited cases in proving that marriage is a fundamental right.

[Stargazer]

This is not a correct statement.

I only cited cases in proving that marriage is a fundamental right.

Aaarrrggghhh! Yes, yes, I know. But you were also using it as a legal argument in favor of gay marriage! And that particular point is what I was objecting to, that California Boy mistook for something else. Can we please get on the same page for five minutes?

Zablocki v. Redhail is a case striking down certain restrictions on heterosexual marriage that Wisconsin had enacted. It does not bear on SSM. Whether or not marriage is a fundamental right, marriage has always been understood and defined in the law to mean a legal and lawful relationship between a man and a woman, and redefining it otherwise is something that a court cannot do, for the simple reason that there is supposed to be a separation of powers, in which legislatures make laws, not courts and not executives. So trying to argue about marriage being a fundamental right because a SCOTUS decision said so, is irrelevant. It is putting the cart before the horse when it comes to SSM, because until marriage becomes legally defined otherwise, the fundamental right of marriage means that California Boy may marry his choice of woman, or not, as it pleases him, but he can't marry another man, because that isn't marriage. Now, I understand that CB, Darin, and frankenstein among others, dearly want to change the definition of marriage. Fine, do it through the will of the people, not through back-alley legal tricks enforced by interested and/or agenda-ridden judges who have decided that there's nothing wrong with legislating from the bench.

And as to marriage being a fundamental right, fine, except that there are entire classes of people which you, frankenstein, are not allowed to marry. Doesn't sound fundamental to me, despite how the courts have characterized it.

[frankenstein]

And as to marriage being a fundamental right, fine, except that there are entire classes of people which you, frankenstein, are not allowed to marry. Doesn't sound fundamental to me, despite how the courts have characterized it.

if it doesn't sound fundamental then you don't understand fundamental. Also, where have I advocated for ssm. I have only challenged statements made by others.

[california boy]

Aaarrrggghhh! Yes, yes, I know. But you were also using it as a legal argument in favor of gay marriage! And that particular point is what I was objecting to, that California Boy mistook for something else. Can we please get on the same page for five minutes?

Zablocki v. Redhail is a case striking down certain restrictions on heterosexual marriage that Wisconsin had enacted. It does not bear on SSM. Whether or not marriage is a fundamental right, marriage has always been understood and defined in the law to mean a legal and lawful relationship between a man and a woman, and redefining it otherwise is something that a court cannot do, for the simple reason that there is supposed to be a separation of powers, in which legislatures make laws, not courts and not executives. So trying to argue about marriage being a fundamental right because a SCOTUS decision said so, is irrelevant. It is putting the cart before the horse when it comes to SSM, because until marriage becomes legally defined otherwise, the fundamental right of marriage means that California Boy may marry his choice of woman, or not, as it pleases him, but he can't marry another man, because that isn't marriage. Now, I understand that CB, Darin, and frankenstein among others, dearly want to change the definition of marriage. Fine, do it through the will of the people, not through back-alley legal tricks enforced by interested and/or agenda-ridden judges who have decided that there's nothing wrong with legislating from the bench.

And as to marriage being a fundamental right, fine, except that there are entire classes of people which you, frankenstein, are not allowed to marry. Doesn't sound fundamental to me, despite how the courts have characterized it.

I completely understood your point. I was simply stating that many judges would disagree with your assertion. Interpretation of the law is their job. If they can be convinced that marriage is a fundamental right of even gay couples then they will rule that existing law forces them to allow for gay marriage. It is not something should be put up to a popular vote. That is their position. You may disagree with it, but it is a legitimate position.

[Daniel2]

This just in from CNN.com

New York State Senate Approves Same-Sex Marriage

Friday, June 24, 2011, 10:20 pm ET

New York legislators cleared the last major hurdle to legalize same-sex marriage Friday when the state Senate followed the Assembly's lead in approving legislation to do so.

Earlier in the day, the Assembly passed a version of the bill that included an amendment about religious institutions. The Friday night vote in the Senate means the legislation's fate is now in the hands of Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who proposed it.

FULL STORY

The Senate vote came after lawmakers agreed on an amendment that would help protect religious institutions from potential lawsuits, Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos said.

Demonstrators have gathered for days in Albany as state lawmakers pored over the details of the bill, which would help make New York the nation's sixth and largest state to legalize same-sex marriage.

The vote on the marriage measure, which the state Assembly passed June 15, was stalled in part by Republican concerns over protections for religious institutions against the potential for litigation.

Cuomo says the bill would grant same-sex couples equal rights to marry "as well as hundreds of rights, benefits and protections that are currently limited to married couples of the opposite sex."

Currently, five states - Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont and New Hampshire - and the District of Columbia grant same-sex marriage licenses.

The passage of same-sex marriage laws faced a daunting history in the New York state legislature.

The Senate rejected a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in 2009 and has blocked the last three attempts by the state's lower house to get the proposed legislation signed into law.

Although New York currently does not grant same-sex marriages, a 2008 appellate court ruling upheld the right of couples to have their same-sex marriages recognized if they are performed elsewhere.

[Daniel2]

And from msnbc.com:

NY Senate passes gay-marriage bill

ALBANY, N.Y. — New York lawmakers narrowly voted to legalize same-sex marriage Friday, handing activists a breakthrough victory in the state where the gay rights movement was born.

New York will become the sixth state where gay couples can wed and the biggest by far.

"We are leaders and we join other proud states that recognize our families and the battle will now go on in other states," said Sen. Thomas Duane, a Democrat.

Gay rights advocates are hoping the vote will galvanize the movement around the country and help it regain momentum after an almost identical bill was defeated here in 2009 and similar measures failed in 2010 in New Jersey and this year in Maryland and Rhode Island.

Though New York is a relative latecomer in allowing gay marriage, it is considered an important prize for advocates, given the state's size and New York City's international stature and its role as the birthplace of the gay rights movement, which is considered to have started with the Stonewall riots in Greenwich Village in 1969.

The New York bill cleared the Republican-controlled state Senate on a 33-29 vote. The Democrat-led Assembly, which passed a different version last week, is expected to pass the new version with stronger religious exemptions and Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who campaigned on the issue last year, has promised to sign it. Same-sex couples can begin marrying begin 30 days after that.

The passage of New York's legislation was made possible by two Republican senators who had been undecided.

Advertise | AdChoices

Sen. Stephen Saland voted against a similar bill in 2009, helping kill the measure and dealing a blow to the national gay rights movement.

"While I understand that my vote will disappoint many, I also know my vote is a vote of conscience," Saland said in a statement to The Associated Press before the vote. "I am doing the right thing in voting to support marriage equality."

Gay couples in gallery wept during Saland's speech.

Sen. Mark Grisanti, a GOP freshman from Buffalo, also said he would vote for the bill. Grisanti said he could not deny anyone what he called basic rights.

Other political news of note

REUTERS

Republicans leave budget talks, blame Democrats

Republicans pulled out of debt-reduction talks led by Vice President Joe Biden with a flourish on Thursday after facing an impasse with Democrats over tax increases.

House vote to defund Libya mission fails

Pelosi calls Cantor walkout 'interesting'

Obama again stops short of backing gay marriage

Romney, Huntsman compete in Mormon primary

After the vote, Cuomo, in a statement obtained by NBC News, praised the Legislature.

"New York has finally torn down the barrier that has prevented same-sex couples from exercising the freedom to marry and from receiving the fundamental protections that so many couples and families take for granted," Cuomo said. "With the world watching, the Legislature, by a bipartisan vote, has said that all New Yorkers are equal under the law. With this vote, marriage equality will become a reality in our state, delivering long overdue fairness and legal security to thousands of New Yorkers."

The effects of the law could be felt well beyond New York: Unlike Massachusetts, which pioneered gay marriage in 2004, New York has no residency requirement for obtaining a marriage license, meaning the state could become a magnet for gay couples across the country who want to have a wedding in Central Park, the Hamptons, the romantic Hudson Valley or that honeymoon hot spot of yore, Niagara Falls.

New York, the nation's third most populous state, will join Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and Washington, D.C., in allowing same-sex couples to wed.

For five months in 2008, gay marriage was legal in California, the biggest state in population, and 18,000 same-sex couples rushed to tie the knot there before voters overturned the state Supreme Court ruling that allowed the practice. The constitutionality of California's ban is now before a federal appeals court.

While court challenges in New York are all but certain, the state — unlike California — makes it difficult for the voters to repeal laws at the ballot box. Changing the law would require a constitutional convention, a long, drawn-out process.

The sticking point over the past few days: Republican demands for stronger legal protections for religious groups that fear they will be hit with discrimination lawsuits if they refuse to allow their facilities to be used for gay weddings.

Vote follows secret talks

The climactic vote came after more than a week of stop-and-start negotiations, rumors, closed-door meetings and frustration on the part of advocates. Online discussions took on a nasty turn with insults and vulgarities peppering the screens of opponents and supporters alike and security was beefed up in the capitol to give senators easier passage to and from their conference room.

Advertise | AdChoices

The night before, President Barack Obama encouraged lawmakers to support gay rights during a fundraiser with New York City's gay community. The vote also is sure to charge up annual gay pride events this weekend, culminating with parades Sunday in New York City, San Francisco and other cities.

Despite New York City's liberal Democratic politics and large and vocal gay community, previous efforts to legalize same-sex marriage failed over the past several years, in part because the rest of the state is more conservative than the city.

The bill's success this time reflected the powerful support of Cuomo and perhaps a change in public attitudes. Opinion polls for the first time are showing majority support for same-sex marriage, and Congress recently repealed the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that barred gays from serving openly in the military.

In the week leading up to the vote in New York, some Republicans who opposed the bill in 2009 came forward to say they were supporting it for reasons of conscience and a duty to ensure civil rights.

Pressure to vote for gay marriage also came from celebrities, athletes and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the Republican-turned-independent who has long used his own fortune to help bankroll GOP campaigns and who personally lobbied some undecided lawmakers. Lady Gaga has been urging her 11 million Twitter followers to call New York senators in support of the bill.

While the support of the Assembly was never in doubt, it took days of furious deal-making to secure two Republican votes needed for passage in the closely divided Senate.

Representatives of the Roman Catholic Church, Orthodox rabbis and other conservative religious leaders fought the measure, and their GOP allies pressed hard for stronger legal protections for religious organizations.

Each side of the debate was funded by more than $1 million from national and state advocates who waged media blitzes and promised campaign cash for lawmakers who sided with them.

But GOP senators said it was Cuomo's passionate appeals in the governor's mansion on Monday night and in closed-door, individual meetings that were perhaps most persuasive.

The bill makes New York only the third state, after Vermont and New Hampshire, to legalize marriage through a legislative act and without being forced to do so by a court.

NBC News contributed to this report from The Associated Press.

[Stargazer]

I completely understood your point. I was simply stating that many judges would disagree with your assertion. Interpretation of the law is their job. If they can be convinced that marriage is a fundamental right of even gay couples then they will rule that existing law forces them to allow for gay marriage. It is not something should be put up to a popular vote. That is their position. You may disagree with it, but it is a legitimate position.

I do disagree, but I understand that it is a legitimate position.

[Stargazer]

if it doesn't sound fundamental then you don't understand fundamental. Also, where have I advocated for ssm. I have only challenged statements made by others.

I don't know, dude, but the way you have been writing about this subject, I was left with the overwhelming impression that you were in favor of it. If that is truly not your position, I am sorry for misunderstanding, but I must say that sometimes then you do not express yourself very accurately.

[Mordecai]

if it doesn't sound fundamental then you don't understand fundamental...

Wikipedia says the following are considered fundamental rights:

Right to equal protection under the law

Right to freedom of thought

Right to freedom of speech and press (cf. freedom of expression)

Right to freedom of association

Right to freedom of movement within the country

Right to vote in general election

Right to direct a child's upbringing

Right to privacy

Right to marry

Right to property

Right to freedom of contract by parties with proportional bargaining power

One thing I do not see there is the right to have the gov't call a gay union, a "marriage." I also see "freedom of thought" and "freedom of speech," there, both of which demand that the gov't not impose left-wing Newspeak, like Big Brother. We also see the "right to direct one's child's upbringing." Of course, if the gov't adopts "gay marriage," social conservatives will certainly have their culture and religion ignored or disdained by their children. So we see multiple examples of the gov't infringing upon fundamental rights by adopting gay-marriage dogma, but there is nothing here that indicates the gov't must call a gay union a "marriage."

[Daniel2]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsHDmfRk9QM&sns=em

Great video commentary by Olberman.

Daniel2

[california boy]

Wikipedia says the following are considered fundamental rights:

One thing I do not see there is the right to have the gov't call a gay union, a "marriage." I also see "freedom of thought" and "freedom of speech," there, both of which demand that the gov't not impose left-wing Newspeak, like Big Brother. We also see the "right to direct one's child's upbringing." Of course, if the gov't adopts "gay marriage," social conservatives will certainly have their culture and religion ignored or disdained by their children. So we see multiple examples of the gov't infringing upon fundamental rights by adopting gay-marriage dogma, but there is nothing here that indicates the gov't must call a gay union a "marriage."

Not that it will matter much to you, but the most often used Right is "Equal Protection". I love how you spread this fear that children will igonre their religion, culture, and parents if gay marriage is passed. Does that fear mongering rationality really work for you??

[california boy]

And from msnbc.com:

NY Senate passes gay-marriage bill

ALBANY, N.Y. — New York lawmakers narrowly voted to legalize same-sex marriage Friday, handing activists a breakthrough victory in the state where the gay rights movement was born.

New York will become the sixth state where gay couples can wed and the biggest by far.

"We are leaders and we join other proud states that recognize our families and the battle will now go on in other states," said Sen. Thomas Duane, a Democrat.

Gay rights advocates are hoping the vote will galvanize the movement around the country and help it regain momentum after an almost identical bill was defeated here in 2009 and similar measures failed in 2010 in New Jersey and this year in Maryland and Rhode Island.

Though New York is a relative latecomer in allowing gay marriage, it is considered an important prize for advocates, given the state's size and New York City's international stature and its role as the birthplace of the gay rights movement, which is considered to have started with the Stonewall riots in Greenwich Village in 1969.

The New York bill cleared the Republican-controlled state Senate on a 33-29 vote. The Democrat-led Assembly, which passed a different version last week, is expected to pass the new version with stronger religious exemptions and Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who campaigned on the issue last year, has promised to sign it. Same-sex couples can begin marrying begin 30 days after that.

The passage of New York's legislation was made possible by two Republican senators who had been undecided.

Advertise | AdChoices

Sen. Stephen Saland voted against a similar bill in 2009, helping kill the measure and dealing a blow to the national gay rights movement.

"While I understand that my vote will disappoint many, I also know my vote is a vote of conscience," Saland said in a statement to The Associated Press before the vote. "I am doing the right thing in voting to support marriage equality."

Gay couples in gallery wept during Saland's speech.

Sen. Mark Grisanti, a GOP freshman from Buffalo, also said he would vote for the bill. Grisanti said he could not deny anyone what he called basic rights.

Other political news of note

REUTERS

Republicans leave budget talks, blame Democrats

Republicans pulled out of debt-reduction talks led by Vice President Joe Biden with a flourish on Thursday after facing an impasse with Democrats over tax increases.

House vote to defund Libya mission fails

Pelosi calls Cantor walkout 'interesting'

Obama again stops short of backing gay marriage

Romney, Huntsman compete in Mormon primary

After the vote, Cuomo, in a statement obtained by NBC News, praised the Legislature.

"New York has finally torn down the barrier that has prevented same-sex couples from exercising the freedom to marry and from receiving the fundamental protections that so many couples and families take for granted," Cuomo said. "With the world watching, the Legislature, by a bipartisan vote, has said that all New Yorkers are equal under the law. With this vote, marriage equality will become a reality in our state, delivering long overdue fairness and legal security to thousands of New Yorkers."

The effects of the law could be felt well beyond New York: Unlike Massachusetts, which pioneered gay marriage in 2004, New York has no residency requirement for obtaining a marriage license, meaning the state could become a magnet for gay couples across the country who want to have a wedding in Central Park, the Hamptons, the romantic Hudson Valley or that honeymoon hot spot of yore, Niagara Falls.

New York, the nation's third most populous state, will join Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and Washington, D.C., in allowing same-sex couples to wed.

For five months in 2008, gay marriage was legal in California, the biggest state in population, and 18,000 same-sex couples rushed to tie the knot there before voters overturned the state Supreme Court ruling that allowed the practice. The constitutionality of California's ban is now before a federal appeals court.

While court challenges in New York are all but certain, the state — unlike California — makes it difficult for the voters to repeal laws at the ballot box. Changing the law would require a constitutional convention, a long, drawn-out process.

The sticking point over the past few days: Republican demands for stronger legal protections for religious groups that fear they will be hit with discrimination lawsuits if they refuse to allow their facilities to be used for gay weddings.

Vote follows secret talks

The climactic vote came after more than a week of stop-and-start negotiations, rumors, closed-door meetings and frustration on the part of advocates. Online discussions took on a nasty turn with insults and vulgarities peppering the screens of opponents and supporters alike and security was beefed up in the capitol to give senators easier passage to and from their conference room.

Advertise | AdChoices

The night before, President Barack Obama encouraged lawmakers to support gay rights during a fundraiser with New York City's gay community. The vote also is sure to charge up annual gay pride events this weekend, culminating with parades Sunday in New York City, San Francisco and other cities.

Despite New York City's liberal Democratic politics and large and vocal gay community, previous efforts to legalize same-sex marriage failed over the past several years, in part because the rest of the state is more conservative than the city.

The bill's success this time reflected the powerful support of Cuomo and perhaps a change in public attitudes. Opinion polls for the first time are showing majority support for same-sex marriage, and Congress recently repealed the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that barred gays from serving openly in the military.

In the week leading up to the vote in New York, some Republicans who opposed the bill in 2009 came forward to say they were supporting it for reasons of conscience and a duty to ensure civil rights.

Pressure to vote for gay marriage also came from celebrities, athletes and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the Republican-turned-independent who has long used his own fortune to help bankroll GOP campaigns and who personally lobbied some undecided lawmakers. Lady Gaga has been urging her 11 million Twitter followers to call New York senators in support of the bill.

While the support of the Assembly was never in doubt, it took days of furious deal-making to secure two Republican votes needed for passage in the closely divided Senate.

Representatives of the Roman Catholic Church, Orthodox rabbis and other conservative religious leaders fought the measure, and their GOP allies pressed hard for stronger legal protections for religious organizations.

Each side of the debate was funded by more than $1 million from national and state advocates who waged media blitzes and promised campaign cash for lawmakers who sided with them.

But GOP senators said it was Cuomo's passionate appeals in the governor's mansion on Monday night and in closed-door, individual meetings that were perhaps most persuasive.

The bill makes New York only the third state, after Vermont and New Hampshire, to legalize marriage through a legislative act and without being forced to do so by a court.

NBC News contributed to this report from The Associated Press.

This represents a shift in the Marriage Equality debate. When you start having Republicans voting for gay marriage then you realize that more and more people are understanding what this debate is all about. It is not a definition, it is equal rights. And even Republicans can understand the difference. It wouldn't have passed without the help of a handful of Republians.

Part of the change that made this possible is when donors to Republican candidates started lobbying them to reconsider their opinions. There are a lot of Republicans that support gay marriage. Even some very high profile Republicans like Laura Bush and John McCains wife and daughter. But they are not up for re-election. As the demographics change and more people support gay marriage than are against it, it makes it more difficult to be against something just because you think it will get you more votes.

The battle is not over, but justice does move forward. Congratulations to America. It's the right thing to do.

[DH]

I'm glad to hear the good news from New York.

[frankenstein]

Wikipedia says the following are considered fundamental rights:

since you admitted you don't pay attention to some detail, and it was demonstrated quite reasonably that you make commentary on things you haven't read, in light this please look at the right listed between privacy and property, what is the right listed between those two?

so marriage is a fundamental right, then it must be settled by the courts whether marriage laws which prohibited ssm promote a compelling government interest with said law being narrowly tailored, and prohibiting ssm marriage is the least restrictive means of promoting the compelling government interest.

I would suggestion that those opposed to ssm start documenting the reason provided, by non-married-co-habitating hetero couples, for not being married yet living to together. I highly doubt many will say "We are not married because homosexuals have sullied the 8 term 'marriage'". But if one can provide sufficient evidence that hetero are not getting married because of ssm then I am sure the courts would find in favor of prohibitions on ssm. The evidence would have to be very convincing, that is causation would have to be shown not meerly correlation. If we go on correlation alone, then the rise in global temps is directly related to low numbers of high seas pirates.

[Mordecai]

...so marriage is a fundamental right...

I never denied that and fully expected such a response, which is why I am prepared to respond to you in the following way: Marriage is defined as "the carrying out of the decision to live as husband and wife through legal agreements, ceremony, etc." Is a civil union a legal agreement? Yup. There isn't a SINGLE definition of marriage that says, "A couple is only married if the state in which they live calls their union 'a marriage.'"

So gay people are not being denied fundamental rights with civil unions, but at the same time, there are multiple fundamental rights violations, when "gay marriage" is the official dogma of the government. Those rights include the right to direct the upbringing of one's child, free thought and free speech. CASE CLOSED. Your extremist lefty dogma, when adopted by the government, is tyrannically oppressing the "inferior" opposing culture. Judging by your response, it seems that you aren't the least bit concerned about the fundamental rights violations occurring against conservatives. That's disgustingly hypocritical, elitist, totalitarian, obtuse, ethnocentric, egocentric and bigoted. In short, morally bankrupt.

[frankenstein]

So gay people are not being denied fundamental rights with civil unions, but at the same time, there are multiple fundamental rights violations, when "gay marriage" is the official dogma of the government. Those rights include the right to direct the upbringing of one's child, free thought and free speech.

There are no "thought police" so freedom of thought violation is just ludicrous, even for you.

However, I would you, in all sincerity of the request, for you to explain how ssm interferes with the rights of a conservative parent to direct the upbringing of ones child.

For a starters, home school or private school is available to American Citizens. And this is not a question welfare for attending private school, public school is not mandatory.

And separately how ssm, violates the right a conservatives freedom of speech. And given that persons can hold parade and use ethic slurs and the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution protects said speech, I am really interested in how "conservatives" rights are being violated.

[DH]

So gay people are not being denied fundamental rights with civil unions, but at the same time, there are multiple fundamental rights violations, when "gay marriage" is the official dogma of the government.

I don't see how allowing gays to marry makes gay marriage "the official dogma of the government." If it were "official dogma," wouldn't it then be mandatory that everybody marry someone of the same sex?

Those rights include the right to direct the upbringing of one's child, free thought and free speech. CASE CLOSED. Your extremist lefty dogma, when adopted by the government, is tyrannically oppressing the "inferior" opposing culture. Judging by your response, it seems that you aren't the least bit concerned about the fundamental rights violations occurring against conservatives. That's disgustingly hypocritical, elitist, totalitarian, obtuse, ethnocentric, egocentric and bigoted. In short, morally bankrupt.

How does allowing gays to marry violate a conservative's free speech? How does it violate their right to raise their children how they want? How does it violate your right to free thought?

You're just making wild assertions here. Present us with a reasoned argument, and we'll talk.

[Mordecai]

There are no "thought police" so freedom of thought violation is just ludicrous, even for you.

It's going to influence the impressionable children of social conservatives, which is how the left will smother the "inferior" culture and prop up their own. It is a form of mind control when you manipulate the language. Newspeak in Orwell's 1984 was designed to do just that, and that is what we see with "gay marriage."

However, I would you, in all sincerity of the request, for you to explain how ssm interferes with the rights of a conservative parent to direct the upbringing of ones child.

For a starters, home school or private school is available to American Citizens. And this is not a question welfare for attending private school, public school is not mandatory.

Not everyone can afford home schools or private schools, obviously. It's also very inconvenient and a burden arbitrarily placed only on those that are social conservatives, which represents inequality under the law. Lastly, it imposes social and emotional pressure by having "higher English" be left-wing English, coming from the courts and schools. It represents thought control for young people and old people through social and political pressure.

And separately how ssm, violates the right a conservatives freedom of speech.

It makes the free exchange of information difficult and heavily biases the debate in favor of mindless left-wing dogma. Obviously, if we don't want a state religion, we shouldn't have a state secular dogma either. Free speech only does its job, when the gov't doesn't distort or impede the discussion, so as to allow the best ideas to rise to the top and the weaker to fall by the wayside. The gov't adopting "gay marriage" ensures that the idea will never, ever fall by the wayside but artificially preserves it.

And given that persons can hold parade and use ethic slurs and the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution protects said speech, I am really interested in how "conservatives" rights are being violated.

Funny how this represents free speech, while the free exchange of political ideas is really the whole point of free speech. Yet, you are, judging by your relentless arguing in favor of "gay marriage," for the government oppressing social conservatism in this fashion.

[Mordecai]

I don't see how allowing gays to marry makes gay marriage "the official dogma of the government."

No one is stopping gay people from "marrying." Again, what's a marriage? "The carrying out of the decision to live together as husband and wife via legal agreements, ceremony, etc." Now, a civil union represents a legal agreement. In fact, the media has repeatedly referred to civil unions in Denmark as "gay marriage" despite the fact that Denmark doesn't refer to those unions as "marriages."

If it were "official dogma," wouldn't it then be mandatory that everybody marry someone of the same sex?

The dogma is implied. The implication of "gay marriage" is that there are no relevant differences between a gay union and a real marriage. I challenge you to prove they are the same by objective measures. That's not possible. So why is the government adopting it as if it is Truth?

[Ron Beron]

it is now apparent that you are not interested in honest dialogue, and by honest, I mean the common definition of honest. Marriage is fundamental right, that is the law. I see no reason to continue with you

Loving v. Virgina

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental ... . Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom...

ZABLOCKI v. REDHAIL 434 U.S. 374 (1978)

It is not surprising that the decision to marry has been placed on the same level of importance as decisions relating to procreation, childbirth, child rearing, and family relationships. ... By reaffirming the fundamental character of the right to marry,...

These persons are absolutely prevented from getting married. Many others, able in theory to satisfy the statute's requirements, will be sufficiently burdened by having to do so that they will in effect be coerced into forgoing their right to marry. And even those who can be persuaded to meet the statute's requirements suffer a serious intrusion into their freedom of choice in an area in which we have held such freedom to be fundamental.

deny it all you want, In the United States, marriage is a fundamental right. and deny it all you want, and look like fool, but ssm marriage was a right to all citizens of Ca.

Marriage is a right, but what is the definition of marriage espoused by these jurists? In 1978 SSM was hardly a working philosophy. While the practice may differ from culture to culture the general historical and culture definition is that of a marriage between a man and woman.

The reasons behind this and not for the acceptance of gay marriage are rooted in the traditional role of a man and woman's marriage being validated by society and friends and the subsequently bearing of offspring.

While SSM might be legally accepted in many states it will still be considered an aberration as has been polygamy and incest.

[frankenstein]

Funny how this represents free speech, while the free exchange of political ideas is really the whole point of free speech. Yet, you are, judging by your relentless arguing in favor of "gay marriage," for the government oppressing social conservatism in this fashion.

I have only challenged the basis for opposing it; consider it a favor in helping you hone your argument. You do realize its 1984 and not 1994?

as for thought police and the other ridiculous "violation" you mentioned, I did not figure you had any basis for your claims, but I was curious to read what you would claim. Your right to free speech is not infringed by ssm, its just that simple, you are free and protected by the Constitution to voice you opposition to ssm. Did the legalization of abortion violate the rights of conservative to oppose it? Are people not free to express their opposition to abortion? your claims are beyond ridiculous.

------

Red Beron, marriage is not needed for offspring. Offspring is not a requirement for marriage. Tradition is not a valid basis for law.

[Mordecai]

I have only challenged the basis for opposing it; consider it a favor in helping you hone your argument. You do realize its 1984 and not 1994?

Actually, it's 2011. (For the record, a typo).

...as for thought police and the other ridiculous "violation" you mentioned...

Depraved indifference toward genuine fundamental rights violations. What a surprise that conservatives, once again, aren't really people but homosexuals are. When you've lived in California, you get used to this, sadly. You aren't from the Bay Area, are you? You sound like it.

Your right to free speech is not infringed by ssm, its just that simple, you are free and protected by the Constitution to voice you opposition to ssm.

It's not simple at all. It's quite complex. What good is free speech, if people don't understand what you're saying due to gov't distortions in the language? Again, "gay marriage" confuses the issue by muddling the debate, like adding a lot of loud white noise to all conservative commercials. It's the same result.

Did the legalization of abortion violate the rights of conservative to oppose it? Are people not free to express their opposition to abortion? your claims are beyond ridiculous.

Obviously, you haven't understood a word I've been saying, if you think that's a valid analogy. An accurate analogy would be if the right started passing laws officially having the gov't refer to abortion as infanticide. I'm sure the left would be fine with that, and see it as tolerance toward conservatives, right? Or would they see it as indoctrination and be angry with a Big Brother government manipulating the language? Certainly the latter.

Again, depraved indifference toward actual fundamental rights violations. You seem to only care about the imaginary right to have the government manipulate the language to trick people into adopting left-wing "superior" culture. That said, your persistent arguing in favor of "gay marriage" has given me a new analogy to explain to liberals how unjust it is to have the gov't manipulate a debate in such a way. I will never stop using this abortion versus infanticide analogy.

[thesometimesaint]

frankenstein:

Barring serious medical problems the potential for children is essential for marriage. Homosexuals by definition can not reproduce with out the aid of a third party.